Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jun 26, 2012 8:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

grendel -

Well this old (fiscal) conservative almost agrees with you except here's where I get stuck - and it has very little to do with actual Health Care.

I don't think this falls under the auspices of the Federal government. To me this is a 10th Amendment, State's issue.

If the Feds are going to enact bullshit laws preventing people from seeking health care options and solutions across state lines, then by default (IMO), it is entirely a state's issue to address and regulate.

I suppose the rub is distribution of funding, but I think it would become a water seeks its own level equilibrium.

What I would like to see the Feds do is completely overhaul Big Pharma and the Health Insurance industries, but since these are very powerful lobbies with an ass load of our "leadership" securely in their back pockets, I have little hope of such reform.

Yet another reason why I am rooting for the complete collapse of the dollar and our economic system in my lifetime....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Jun 26, 2012 9:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

How will throwing hundreds of millions of people into total chaos help anyone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jun 26, 2012 10:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

We get a real chance at building it back correctly.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Jun 26, 2012 11:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

And when you don't know what is correct, what then ?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jun 26, 2012 12:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

I know what isn't correct. I'll start there.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Jun 26, 2012 12:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

I find it doubtful.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jun 26, 2012 10:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

Mando-

I almost agree with you also, and the GOP standard-bearing line of solving the insurance problem by letting people purchase across state lines would be fine IF there was any major discernible benefit from such competition. The insurance companies, however--wherever you look--, are still motivated FIRST by shareholder profit and a VERY DISTANT SECOND by the actual well being (health) of their customers, which means that no matter which plan you choose, the ins. company has every reason to look for reasons to deny or limit your coverage b/c anything they do to alleviate a medical problem for you or your family is going to cost their shareholders money.

This is why it is absurd that health care should be (IMO) a PRODUCT, when as practiced in a free market system your actual health--the most important thing you've got--is only a secondary concern.

Every major industrialized nation on this planet provides health care for its citizens. Health care affects everyone, and everyone WILL need it, despite what the GOP would have you believe otherwise, and it's not so crazy to (as they themselves decided in the 90's) to therefore make sure everyone pays into the system and doesn't let freeloaders who go to the ER every 4th of July b/c they're too stupid to let go of their M-80's in time and blow off a finger stick the rest of US with a higher premium on our insurance b/c they need their "freedom" to not carry any themselves.

The individual mandate solves this, but I guaran-fucking-tee you, as former insurance exec turned activist WENDELL POTTER (please everyone look up his interviews) has predicted...the insurance companies are licking their chops b/c they have the lobbyists in place ready to pick apart by a thousand cuts every meaningful protection against their money-sucking practices as possible, and what you'll be left with is the same old not-worth-the-paper-it's-printed-on policies that currently bleed people of their life savings whenever they suffer a catastrophic illness.

That's why in front of the TV cameras the Republicans bloviate about Obamacare but BEHIND THE SCENES the same politicians are conferring with insurance company lobbyists rooting for the court to uphold the mandate so their customer base grows by 30-40 million overnight. Then the red pens come out and it's time for reaping the big bucks.

I still don't think it will survive (parts might, the mandate probably not), but I won't shed a tear if Scalia and Co. shoot it down for political reasons...the only sad thing is that we'll be left w/the current unsustainable "health care" system we have, which is a bad, sick (literally) joke on all of us.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Jun 26, 2012 11:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

You've just made a pretty solid argument for why the Health Care/Insurance industry shold be nationalized. (Yeah, you just felt the Earth wobble on it's axis).

I'd leave Big Pharma out of it, because even as shitty as many of the companies are, there is still some honest level of competition putting effective and viable products out there.

I think you're right about the individual mandate being struck down and the rest being left intact. But I see that as a purely political move by SCOTUS. It takes some of the sting out of the bitch slap and allows Obama some solace. But if I am not mistaken it would be a Pyrrhic victory in that the rest of the ACA doesn't get funded properly without the provisions of the individual mandate?

We are better than this - but this is the cost of abdicating our responsibilities as an electorate to hold those douchebags in office accountable for what they do. It's easier and takes less effort to be distracted by what some Snooki bimbo on the brain vacuum TV is or isn't wearing for underwear than it is to pay attention to what is going on.

Thursday will be an interesting day indeed. I'm contemplating buying call options on health insurance companies and contributing the profits to the election campaign of a bucket of slugs......

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jun 26, 2012 12:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Supremes

"It's easier and takes less effort to be distracted by what some Snooki bimbo on the brain vacuum TV is or isn't wearing for underwear than it is to pay attention to what is going on."


You just nailed it.

The rise of the Tea Baggers, 30 second TV ads that sway "undecideds", and hypocrisy so blatant it SHOULD bring down candidate after candidate is instead rewarded by an electorate that votes in greater numbers for the winner of a national karaoke contest than it does for President.

Like Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."